How do you "own" lands? Who owned them before the "native Americans"? How did they take possession?
You own lands because you buy them or fight for them. The reason Americans own lands now is the same reason the natives own theirs...compromises after the war. We can do what we want with our lands, and they can do what they want with their lands.
Since i was a kid liberalism and all the bad things america has done was pounded into my head.
It wasn't until i encountered this thing called "reality" that i started to see the light.
ps: i read peoples history.
liberal:
(of a political party or a country) believing in or allowing more personal freedom and a development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society
I never understood how people can consider this something bad, especially Christians.
liberal:
(of a political party or a country) believing in or allowing more personal freedom and a development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society
I never understood how people can consider this something bad, especially Christians.
That definition is interesting because in practical application contains a paradox. The way liberals achieve the 2nd part requires them to do exactly the opposite of the first part (minimum wage, income tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, affirmative action, hate crime legislation, etc...).
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
liberal:
(of a political party or a country) believing in or allowing more personal freedom and a development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society
I never understood how people can consider this something bad, especially Christians.
More personal freedom and development of fairer sharing of wealth are almost diametrically opposed. Especially given the way that liberals in government seem to want to achive the fairer sharing of wealth.
Governments never want to make it easy and lessen their role in society. Every program is partially about growing governments size, power and authority.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Two. So I pick up a copy and start reading, get all the way to page 7 where there is a passage that reads...
Thus began the history, five hundred years ago, of the European invasion of the Indian settlements in the Americas. That beginning, when you read Las Casas-even if his figures are exaggerations- is conquest, ,slavery, death.
Yeah that's not a typo on my part, regarding the comma before slavery, and the word death is highlighted... looks almost like it was done in pen.
Anyways, just curious if I have a special edition as there is no other typos or marks in the book...or did "psychos in love" break into my apt and do his own editing on the book...hmmm.
Can anyone confirm? I'm hoping I have a special edition...
I think your edition has been visited by the ghost of pychos past.
That definition is interesting because in practical application contains a paradox. The way liberals achieve the 2nd part requires them to do exactly the opposite of the first part (minimum wage, income tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, affirmative action, hate crime legislation, etc...).
I disagree.
Here's another (better) defintion of liberal:
1willing to understand and respect the ideas and feelings of others
2supporting or allowing some change
3encouraging or leading to a wide general knowledge, wide possibilities for self-expression, and respect for other people's opinions
4giving freely and generously
liberalism: liberal opinions or principles
I can't understand how miller can say that that is a mental disorder, especially because I think some of these things (giving, respecting ...) are pretty Christian.
source: Longman dictionary of English Language and Culture
Especially given the way that liberals in government seem to want to achive the fairer sharing of wealth.
I agree with this to some extend.
Governments never want to make it easy and lessen their role in society. Every program is partially about growing governments size, power and authority.
Yeah, yeah, I should have read this along time ago, but a couple things anyways...
One...think about it. and never share pertinent info with this "fan club"
Two. So I pick up a copy and start reading, get all the way to page 7 where there is a passage that reads...
Thus began the history, five hundred years ago, of the European invasion of the Indian settlements in the Americas. That beginning, when you read Las Casas-even if his figures are exaggerations- is conquest, ,slavery, death.
Yeah that's not a typo on my part, regarding the comma before slavery, and the word death is highlighted... looks almost like it was done in pen.
Anyways, just curious if I have a special edition as there is no other typos or marks in the book...or did "psychos in love" break into my apt and do his own editing on the book...hmmm.
Can anyone confirm? I'm hoping I have a special edition...
thats a book?you dont seem to communcate well -what are you talking about?
indians screwed indians and so did whites -im sick of all that crap
some indians screwed whites how they raised rents on people in vancouver bc -the bastards
and im part indian-that and a dollar will get me a cup of coffe -who cares
thats a book?you dont seem to communcate well -what are you talking about?
indians screwed indians and so did whites -im sick of all that crap
some indians screwed whites how they raised rents on people in vancouver bc -the bastards
and im part indian-that and a dollar will get me a cup of coffe -who cares
Yes, it’s a book. And you’re not winning any communication prizes yourself wiseass…
I hacked the original post because I felt I shared too much info.
It’s a book that’s been suggested to me several times…and I’ve heard Zinn’s name mentioned around here frequently so I thought I would share. Now go back to your leader and claim your reward…
Oh, I'm german-mohawk by the way...what does your scalp look like?
Most of his sources are government, usually US gov't releases.
History is ususally told from the victors point of view. This history is told from the eyes of the victims. And he doesn't hide that fact.
It is one of the most important books of our time, "A People's History of the United States." Read it.
This leftist disagrees:
"Howard Zinn is an evangelist of little imagination for whom history is one long chain of stark moral dualities. His fatalistic vision can only keep the left just where it is: on the margins of American political life."
1willing to understand and respect the ideas and feelings of others
2supporting or allowing some change
3encouraging or leading to a wide general knowledge, wide possibilities for self-expression, and respect for other people's opinions
4giving freely and generously
liberalism: liberal opinions or principles
So this is a better definition for you because it ignores the realities of the way liberals (as defined by your initial definition) affect change in pursuit of their ends.
Yes, it’s a book. And you’re not winning any communication prizes yourself wiseass…
I hacked the original post because I felt I shared too much info.
It’s a book that’s been suggested to me several times…and I’ve heard Zinn’s name mentioned around here frequently so I thought I would share. Now go back to your leader and claim your reward…
Oh, I'm german-mohawk by the way...what does your scalp look like?
liberal:
(of a political party or a country) believing in or allowing more personal freedom and a development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society
I never understood how people can consider this something bad, especially Christians.
b/c talking heads like sean hannity and rush limbaugh tell them
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
More personal freedom and development of fairer sharing of wealth are almost diametrically opposed. Especially given the way that liberals in government seem to want to achive the fairer sharing of wealth.
Governments never want to make it easy and lessen their role in society. Every program is partially about growing governments size, power and authority.
and gutting social programs while increasing corporate welfare is any better?
the system has failed the common wo/man, we need to just deal w/ that instead of picking teams
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
thats a book?you dont seem to communcate well -what are you talking about?
indians screwed indians and so did whites -im sick of all that crap
some indians screwed whites how they raised rents on people in vancouver bc -the bastards
and im part indian-that and a dollar will get me a cup of coffe -who cares
and a lot of indians didn't...they also had a fair trade system instead of the mark up of capitalism, they respected nature living w/ it, not raping and exploiting it, women held a lot of power in some tribes...of course this can't be said for all of them...but it's not like all of them were savages
in fact, the head of the indian affairs office wrote a letter complaining that the problem w/ them was they did not want things, they were happy w/ their lives and how they needed to make them want material possesions and pants w/ pockets to put more things in,,,
regardless, we may have been taught a causual overview of the natives and what happened to them but very brief, nothing is ever mentioned of incidents like wounded knee where the army killed hundreds of men, women and children a few days before christmas...
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
regardless, we may have been taught a causual overview of the natives and what happened to them but very brief, nothing is ever mentioned of incidents like wounded knee where the army killed hundreds of men, women and children a few days before christmas...
Christmas has no meaning in native indian culture, so the fact that you feel the need to mention that wounded knee happened a few days before Christmas is a joke.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Christmas has no meaning in native indian culture, so the fact that you feel the need to mention that wounded knee happened a few days before Christmas is a joke.
but it had meaning to the american troops, no? i'd think it a bit contadictory to shoot down women and children in the backs then go home and celebrate christmas w/ your family....
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
but it had meaning to the american troops, no? i'd think it a bit contadictory to shoot down women and children in the backs then go home and celebrate christmas w/ your family....
Hah, there's the U.S. again - can't do anything right, eh? Western civilization is always in the wrong, eh?
The negativity you express against all things American is staggering. Ok, those soldiers were wrong to kill those innocent people, no one's arguing that. Do their deeds reflect upon Christians' devotion to Christmas or the rest of American society? Those are isolated incidents and any American today would show opposition to them.
The brutality of those soldiers is mirrored in many, many Native American institutions. The greatest Native American tribes were not the hippies you make them out to be. The Mayans, Incas, and Apache could be incredibly brutal and violent at times. You clearly need to reassess your selective education of Native American culture.
These people did not even have written language in most cases. Okay, so maybe they weren't savages - they were incredibly backward in comparison to the Europeans.
Hah, there's the U.S. again - can't do anything right, eh? Western civilization is always in the wrong, eh?
The negativity you express against all things American is staggering. Ok, those soldiers were wrong to kill those innocent people, no one's arguing that. Do their deeds reflect upon Christians' devotion to Christmas or the rest of American society? Those are isolated incidents and any American today would show opposition to them.
the deeds reflect upon those soldiers and their 'devotion', yes.
The brutality of those soldiers is mirrored in many, many Native American institutions. The greatest Native American tribes were not the hippies you make them out to be. The Mayans, Incas, and Apache could be incredibly brutal and violent at times. You clearly need to reassess your selective education of Native American culture.
um, i did mention certain tribes were violent...you need to actually read threads before jumping on 1 certain post
These people did not even have written language in most cases. Okay, so maybe they weren't savages - they were incredibly backward in comparison to the Europeans.
ok, and that's what the aztec's believed, not slogans like 'peace on earth' and 'love your fellow man' if the aztecs had some holiday devoted to someone who preached love, understanding, peace, forgiveness...and then performed sacrficies it would be one thing.
also, what the aztecs did is taught in school...what happened at wounded knee is not...which was the point of my reply, someone said we are taught what we did to the natives.
and anyways, this is a thread about the book A People's History of the United States....the Aztecs did not live in the borders of the US...neither were the Mayans or Incas
The Inca Empire arose from the highlands of Peru around 1197. From 1438 to 1533, the Incas used conquest and peaceful assimilation to incorporate a large portion of western South America, centered on the Andean mountain ranges, including large parts of modern Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, and Chile.
or maybe they thought they were a threat, that is enough bs justification for you in killing ppl, right?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
but it had meaning to the american troops, no? i'd think it a bit contadictory to shoot down women and children in the backs then go home and celebrate christmas w/ your family....
To some individual troops but certainly not all.
But remember that the US is not a Christian nation and the government by constitutional decree knows nor endorses any religion. So given the facts ,it is entirely irrelevant that these sad events occured near Christmas time.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
But remember that the US is not a Christian nation and the government by constitutional decree knows nor endorses any religion. So given the facts ,it is entirely irrelevant that these sad events occured near Christmas time.
do you have to be christian to celebrate christmas?
and i thought ppl posted here that like 90% of the country was christian???
if the government knows no religion why is only the christian bible used to swear and when a muslim wants to use a koran ppl post here how it shouldn't be allowed?
maybe it's irrelevant to you but not to others
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
do you have to be christian to celebrate christmas?
and i thought ppl posted here that like 90% of the country was christian???
if the government knows no religion why is only the christian bible used to swear and when a muslim wants to use a koran ppl post here how it shouldn't be allowed?
maybe it's irrelevant to you but not to others
Christian to celebrate Christmas, no. But to act as if killing near taht time of year is any worse than any other tiem of year, quite possibly. I think that killing is justr as bad every day of the year. I don't discount killing just because it occurs far from a Christian holiday.
What some people want on here and reality are far removed. Either play with the facts or you're no better than Bush.
Christian citizens do not make for a Christian country, especially when there is a constitution forbidding it. The government and it's army are secular. Their actions are secular.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
ok, and that's what the aztec's believed, not slogans like 'peace on earth' and 'love your fellow man' if the aztecs had some holiday devoted to someone who preached love, understanding, peace, forgiveness...and then performed sacrficies it would be one thing.
also, what the aztecs did is taught in school...what happened at wounded knee is not...which was the point of my reply, someone said we are taught what we did to the natives.
and anyways, this is a thread about the book A People's History of the United States....the Aztecs did not live in the borders of the US...neither were the Mayans or Incas
Case in point: ethical relativism at its best. Everyone see this? He is saying that Aztec human sacrifices were not necessarily as bad because the Aztecs believed it was morally acceptable to murder people as a sacrifice to the gods. On the other hand, it was wrong for us to kill native americans because our cultural morality teaches that killing innocent people is wrong. According to you, the morality of their actions hinge, not on any objective understanding of good and bad, but on whether it was accepted practice in their culture to sacrifice a human being by cutting out their heart.
The inherent problem with your thinking is that ethical judgments can vary based on time and culture. It was accepted in early America to own slaves. We now believe that slavery is wrong. Does this mean that slavery was okay back when slavery was accepted in our culture? NO. It was still wrong then and it's wrong now. Ethics cannot vary based on the time and culture of the people. As a result, it was just as wrong for the Aztecs to kill innocent people in sacrifices as it was for the Europeans to kill innocent native americans. Furthermore, this indicates that the native americans were no better than the people who came and conquered them: the Europeans. Unfortunately for them, their technology was inferior to their conquerors so they could not fend them off.
I read a book in highschool called "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee." Wounded knee is mostly certainly taught in our schools, I am a witness to it. We are most certainly berated about what "we" did to the native americans. We are made to feel guilty about the sins of our former leaders - I remember learning about our guilt. Let me tell you what: I have pride in who our leaders were. Sure, some of them made mistakes but in the end, I believe they were heroes for this nation. I am proud of our history and what America has done for the world - America has nothing to be ashamed of: we have done many many great things too.
Okay, so there were plenty of north american tribes that were violent. The Sioux butchered Custer and his men in Custer's last stand. The Mayans, Inca, and Apache were the zenith of native american achievement, though. Therefore, they represent the best that the native americans could achieve. Still, they butchered their own people in naive attempts to get a good harvest. Much like we butcher the unborn to solve our "problems."
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Case in point: ethical relativism at its best. Everyone see this? He is saying that Aztec human sacrifices were not necessarily as bad because the Aztecs believed it was morally acceptable to murder people as a sacrifice to the gods. On the other hand, it was wrong for us to kill native americans because our cultural morality teaches that killing innocent people is wrong. According to you, the morality of their actions hinge, not on any objective understanding of good and bad, but on whether it was accepted practice in their culture to sacrifice a human being by cutting out their heart.
no, that's not what i'm saying at all. when you deal w/ aztec human sacrifices you know what you are going to get - human sacrifice. see, if i say 'aztec human sacrifice' ppl will usually think of them...killing ppl. now, if i say 'christmas' i doubt most ppl will think of the US Army shooting women and children in the back.
The inherent problem with your thinking is that ethical judgments can vary based on time and culture. It was accepted in early America to own slaves. We now believe that slavery is wrong. Does this mean that slavery was okay back when slavery was accepted in our culture? NO. It was still wrong then and it's wrong now. Ethics cannot vary based on the time and culture of the people. As a result, it was just as wrong for the Aztecs to kill innocent people in sacrifices as it was for the Europeans to kill innocent native americans. Furthermore, this indicates that the native americans were no better than the people who came and conquered them: the Europeans. Unfortunately for them, their technology was inferior to their conquerors so they could not fend them off.
I read a book in highschool called "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee." Wounded knee is mostly certainly taught in our schools, I am a witness to it. We are most certainly berated about what "we" did to the native americans. We are made to feel guilty about the sins of our former leaders - I remember learning about our guilt. Let me tell you what: I have pride in who our leaders were. Sure, some of them made mistakes but in the end, I believe they were heroes for this nation. I am proud of our history and what America has done for the world - America has nothing to be ashamed of: we have done many many great things too.
yes, it has done some good things, but it also does a lot of horrible things and never takes accountability for them <in case you forgot that thread you ducked out of>
Okay, so there were plenty of north american tribes that were violent. The Sioux butchered Custer and his men in Custer's last stand. The Mayans, Inca, and Apache were the zenith of native american achievement, though. Therefore, they represent the best that the native americans could achieve. Still, they butchered their own people in naive attempts to get a good harvest. Much like we butcher the unborn to solve our "problems."
the incas also practices peaceful assimilation and there are tribes that didn't butcher ppl. didn't custer deserve it? they were stealing land that was promised to the natives. if i sold you a car then you proceed to put a nice stereo system in it can i say 'hey, that looks like a pretty nice car now, i think i'll take it back'? something tells me you wouldn't let me have the car back for free, would you? but this is what we did. we came and took land, promised them everything west of the mississippi until gold and other things of value were discovered and took them back. your hero andrew jackson violated the supreme court by seizing land belonging to the natives. i just don't see how you can call these ppl heros? what differentiates them from the incas you are speaking about? maybe it wasn't killing ppl b/c they thought the gods would be happy but they sure did kill a looooooooot of ppl out of greed. so why is one ok but not hte other?
in other words:
if they kill ppl it's bad and wrong
if we kill ppl its for good reasons
ethical relativism at its best, folks. does everyone see this?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
no, that's not what i'm saying at all. when you deal w/ aztec human sacrifices you know what you are going to get - human sacrifice. see, if i say 'aztec human sacrifice' ppl will usually think of them...killing ppl. now, if i say 'christmas' i doubt most ppl will think of the US Army shooting women and children in the back.
blah
yes, it has done some good things, but it also does a lot of horrible things and never takes accountability for them <in case you forgot that thread you ducked out of>
the incas also practices peaceful assimilation and there are tribes that didn't butcher ppl. didn't custer deserve it? they were stealing land that was promised to the natives. if i sold you a car then you proceed to put a nice stereo system in it can i say 'hey, that looks like a pretty nice car now, i think i'll take it back'? something tells me you wouldn't let me have the car back for free, would you? but this is what we did. we came and took land, promised them everything west of the mississippi until gold and other things of value were discovered and took them back. your hero andrew jackson violated the supreme court by seizing land belonging to the natives. i just don't see how you can call these ppl heros? what differentiates them from the incas you are speaking about? maybe it wasn't killing ppl b/c they thought the gods would be happy but they sure did kill a looooooooot of ppl out of greed.
Your answers are cop outs and do not address the simple ethical dilemmas you encounter in foisting your morality on one group of people but not another. You are clearly biased against Americans and in favor of the native americans since you are unwilling to condemn the savagery of the Sioux who murdered Custer and all of his men but you are completely against Wounded Knee. Both were immoral acts.
The soldiers probably believed the native americans were sub-human. Not equal to the white man. Therefore, they were not failing to "love their fellow man." They were failing to love "sub-human pagan savages who deserved to die for trespassing on land that rightfully belonged to americans." This is where your relativistic ethical position is wrong. What the soldiers did was wrong but it was wrong for the same reason that the Sioux were wrong for killing Custer and his men, and it was wrong for the same reason that the Aztec, Inca, and Mayans were wrong for killing innocent humans as sacrifices. You cannot say the soldiers were worse because they were Christian - their perspective was different: the indians were "sub-human." It was akin to killing animals.
Now, the problem with your ethical assumptions is that you believe the soldiers were wrong for killing innocent people because you see those people as equal to the soldiers (and deserving of life). The soldiers did not believe this, and most of society did not. Therefore, what they did was not wrong according to the morality of the time. Therefore, you cannot say what they did was wrong if you are unwilling to say that Aztec human sacrifices were wrong. Just because the soldiers were going to celebrate christmas soon didn't matter - in their eyes, they weren't doing anything wrong. Society supported what they did and this did not offend their religious beliefs.
Foisting your own social norms on historical figures is all well and good when hindsight is 20/20. If you are going to continue in this mode of ethical relativism, you have to say that it was okay that the soldiers killed the native americans if it was okay that the Sioux killed Custer and his men. Given different social norms, any one of us could've been one of those soldiers at Wounded Knee, though. You're unwilling to condemn the native americans for being decadent murderers of their own people and yet you are willing to condemn the vast majority of our racist, slaveholding leaders. You say that the killing of innocent native americans by other native americans was just "Aztec sacrifice" and that's what you get when you deal with the history of the Aztecs. Nope, there is objective morality and the human sacrifices were as morally wrong as what the soldiers did. Neither were morally right. The Indians were no better than the people that conquered them.
It's bullshit that somehow you can condemn everything America has ever done but the Indians were somehow "non-materialistic" and "peaceful." Gimme a break. Making those broad assumptions shows the level of historical and ethical integrity you really have.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
in other words:
if they kill ppl it's bad and wrong
if we kill ppl its for good reasons
ethical relativism at its best, folks. does everyone see this?
HEHE!
No.
You must have completely misread my post. I said both were wrong. Clearly you have no idea what ethical relativism is, even though you've succinctly expressed its basic teachings. Well done!
Read up, Kabonkers!!
This is a very good article that indicates exactly why you are wrong:
"Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not. For example, in some societies, killing one's parents after they reached a certain age was common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with these societies on the underlying moral principle -- the duty to care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles."
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Your answers are cop outs and do not address the simple ethical dilemmas you encounter in foisting your morality on one group of people but not another. You are clearly biased against Americans and in favor of the native americans since you are unwilling to condemn the savagery of the Sioux who murdered Custer and all of his men but you are completely against Wounded Knee. Both were immoral acts.
is this b/c you got it handed to you in that other thread about accountability?
I never said it wasn't wrong, i said when someone comes to steal your land one usually reacts to it, and when those invaders have guns blood will be spilt. s...you think what they did was wrong, but yet they are still heros to you and did the right hting? then how was it wrong!?
The soldiers probably believed the native americans were sub-human. Not equal to the white man. Therefore, they were not failing to "love their fellow man." They were failing to love "sub-human pagan savages who deserved to die for trespassing on land that rightfully belonged to americans." This is where your relativistic ethical position is wrong. What the soldiers did was wrong but it was wrong for the same reason that the Sioux were wrong for killing Custer and his men, and it was wrong for the same reason that the Aztec, Inca, and Mayans were wrong for killing innocent humans as sacrifices. You cannot say the soldiers were worse because they were Christian - their perspective was different: the indians were "sub-human." It was akin to killing animals.
ok, and....? i never made many of these arguements, i never said one death was worse than the other. what i said was one is glorified <which you have even admited in doing> while the other is looked down upon. that is my point. we are taught about the aztecs and human sarcifice in school, we are only given a brief overview about what we did to the indians, we definately don't discuss wounded knee, maybe your school did but my school system did not.
'Sure, some of them made mistakes but in the end, I believe they were heroes for this nation. I am proud of our history and what America has done for the world '
those are your words. so if those actions are so bad why do you continue to portray them as heros? why are you 'proud' of this?
Now, the problem with your ethical assumptions is that you believe the soldiers were wrong for killing innocent people because you see those people as equal to the soldiers (and deserving of life). The soldiers did not believe this, and most of society did not. Therefore, what they did was not wrong according to the morality of the time. Therefore, you cannot say what they did was wrong if you are unwilling to say that Aztec human sacrifices were wrong. Just because the soldiers were going to celebrate christmas soon didn't matter - in their eyes, they weren't doing anything wrong. Society supported what they did and this did not offend their religious beliefs.
i never said what the aztecs did wasn't wrong, i also didn't say they were heros and that i was proud of the sacrifices.
Foisting your own social norms on historical figures is all well and good when hindsight is 20/20. If you are going to continue in this mode of ethical relativism, you have to say that it was okay that the soldiers killed the native americans if it was okay that the Sioux killed Custer and his men. Given different social norms, any one of us could've been one of those soldiers at Wounded Knee, though. You're unwilling to condemn the native americans for being decadent murderers of their own people and yet you are willing to condemn the vast majority of our racist, slaveholding leaders. You say that the killing of innocent native americans by other native americans was just "Aztec sacrifice" and that's what you get when you deal with the history of the Aztecs. Nope, there is objective morality and the human sacrifices were as morally wrong as what the soldiers did. Neither were morally right. The Indians were no better than the people that conquered them.
when did i say 'it's just "aztec sacrifice"??? talk about twisting things. what i said was if you talk about aztecs human sacrifice you know what you are talking about...sacrificing humans. if you talk about christmas the first thought most ppl will have will not be the army murdering women and children. and what i said about custer was he was invading land that was not his to take it by force, that is his fault. it's like me breaking into a house and holding a gun to the owners head...if he gets free and shoots me i can't cry about being shot b/c MY actions caused me to be shot. and so did custer's actions of invading land not the US' and trying to take it by force. of course indian killing indian is wrong.
It's bullshit that somehow you can condemn everything America has ever done but the Indians were somehow "non-materialistic" and "peaceful." Gimme a break. Making those broad assumptions shows the level of historical and ethical integrity you really have.
i don't condemn everything america has ever done, but unlike you, i don't think we've only done good things. i also don't think it's ok to not have any accountability for the millions of deaths we have caused.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Comments
You own lands because you buy them or fight for them. The reason Americans own lands now is the same reason the natives own theirs...compromises after the war. We can do what we want with our lands, and they can do what they want with their lands.
liberal:
(of a political party or a country) believing in or allowing more personal freedom and a development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society
I never understood how people can consider this something bad, especially Christians.
naděje umírá poslední
That definition is interesting because in practical application contains a paradox. The way liberals achieve the 2nd part requires them to do exactly the opposite of the first part (minimum wage, income tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, affirmative action, hate crime legislation, etc...).
Governments never want to make it easy and lessen their role in society. Every program is partially about growing governments size, power and authority.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I disagree.
Here's another (better) defintion of liberal:
1willing to understand and respect the ideas and feelings of others
2supporting or allowing some change
3encouraging or leading to a wide general knowledge, wide possibilities for self-expression, and respect for other people's opinions
4giving freely and generously
liberalism: liberal opinions or principles
I can't understand how miller can say that that is a mental disorder, especially because I think some of these things (giving, respecting ...) are pretty Christian.
source: Longman dictionary of English Language and Culture
I agree with this to some extend.
Exactly.
naděje umírá poslední
Most of his sources are government, usually US gov't releases.
History is ususally told from the victors point of view. This history is told from the eyes of the victims. And he doesn't hide that fact.
It is one of the most important books of our time, "A People's History of the United States." Read it.
thats a book?you dont seem to communcate well -what are you talking about?
indians screwed indians and so did whites -im sick of all that crap
some indians screwed whites how they raised rents on people in vancouver bc -the bastards
and im part indian-that and a dollar will get me a cup of coffe -who cares
http://groups.msn.com/PearlJamNirvana/messages.msnw
Yes, it’s a book. And you’re not winning any communication prizes yourself wiseass…
I hacked the original post because I felt I shared too much info.
It’s a book that’s been suggested to me several times…and I’ve heard Zinn’s name mentioned around here frequently so I thought I would share. Now go back to your leader and claim your reward…
Oh, I'm german-mohawk by the way...what does your scalp look like?
This leftist disagrees:
"Howard Zinn is an evangelist of little imagination for whom history is one long chain of stark moral dualities. His fatalistic vision can only keep the left just where it is: on the margins of American political life."
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=385
-Enoch Powell
With my analysis of your definition, or with your definition now that it has been explained?
So this is a better definition for you because it ignores the realities of the way liberals (as defined by your initial definition) affect change in pursuit of their ends.
How did Surferdude's quote that you agreed with to some extent differ from my quote that you disagreed with?
go get wiseassed yourself-rude jerk
http://groups.msn.com/PearlJamNirvana/messages.msnw
Moderate thinkers would probably ackowledge it holds some merit in a lot of areas but has a lot of questionable "sources"
Of course Eddie swears by Zinn so a good amount of people here probably do too......
Haha, come on I was just playing...
Have you read the book?
b/c talking heads like sean hannity and rush limbaugh tell them
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
and gutting social programs while increasing corporate welfare is any better?
the system has failed the common wo/man, we need to just deal w/ that instead of picking teams
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
and a lot of indians didn't...they also had a fair trade system instead of the mark up of capitalism, they respected nature living w/ it, not raping and exploiting it, women held a lot of power in some tribes...of course this can't be said for all of them...but it's not like all of them were savages
in fact, the head of the indian affairs office wrote a letter complaining that the problem w/ them was they did not want things, they were happy w/ their lives and how they needed to make them want material possesions and pants w/ pockets to put more things in,,,
regardless, we may have been taught a causual overview of the natives and what happened to them but very brief, nothing is ever mentioned of incidents like wounded knee where the army killed hundreds of men, women and children a few days before christmas...
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
"You Can't Be Neutral On A Moving Train" is my favorite by Zinn. It's phenomenal.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
but it had meaning to the american troops, no? i'd think it a bit contadictory to shoot down women and children in the backs then go home and celebrate christmas w/ your family....
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Hah, there's the U.S. again - can't do anything right, eh? Western civilization is always in the wrong, eh?
The negativity you express against all things American is staggering. Ok, those soldiers were wrong to kill those innocent people, no one's arguing that. Do their deeds reflect upon Christians' devotion to Christmas or the rest of American society? Those are isolated incidents and any American today would show opposition to them.
The brutality of those soldiers is mirrored in many, many Native American institutions. The greatest Native American tribes were not the hippies you make them out to be. The Mayans, Incas, and Apache could be incredibly brutal and violent at times. You clearly need to reassess your selective education of Native American culture.
These people did not even have written language in most cases. Okay, so maybe they weren't savages - they were incredibly backward in comparison to the Europeans.
Human sacrifice in the Aztec Culture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture
-Enoch Powell
the deeds reflect upon those soldiers and their 'devotion', yes.
um, i did mention certain tribes were violent...you need to actually read threads before jumping on 1 certain post
ok, and that's what the aztec's believed, not slogans like 'peace on earth' and 'love your fellow man' if the aztecs had some holiday devoted to someone who preached love, understanding, peace, forgiveness...and then performed sacrficies it would be one thing.
also, what the aztecs did is taught in school...what happened at wounded knee is not...which was the point of my reply, someone said we are taught what we did to the natives.
and anyways, this is a thread about the book A People's History of the United States....the Aztecs did not live in the borders of the US...neither were the Mayans or Incas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayans#Geographical_position
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incas
The Inca Empire arose from the highlands of Peru around 1197. From 1438 to 1533, the Incas used conquest and peaceful assimilation to incorporate a large portion of western South America, centered on the Andean mountain ranges, including large parts of modern Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, and Chile.
or maybe they thought they were a threat, that is enough bs justification for you in killing ppl, right?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
But remember that the US is not a Christian nation and the government by constitutional decree knows nor endorses any religion. So given the facts ,it is entirely irrelevant that these sad events occured near Christmas time.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
do you have to be christian to celebrate christmas?
and i thought ppl posted here that like 90% of the country was christian???
if the government knows no religion why is only the christian bible used to swear and when a muslim wants to use a koran ppl post here how it shouldn't be allowed?
maybe it's irrelevant to you but not to others
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
What some people want on here and reality are far removed. Either play with the facts or you're no better than Bush.
Christian citizens do not make for a Christian country, especially when there is a constitution forbidding it. The government and it's army are secular. Their actions are secular.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Case in point: ethical relativism at its best. Everyone see this? He is saying that Aztec human sacrifices were not necessarily as bad because the Aztecs believed it was morally acceptable to murder people as a sacrifice to the gods. On the other hand, it was wrong for us to kill native americans because our cultural morality teaches that killing innocent people is wrong. According to you, the morality of their actions hinge, not on any objective understanding of good and bad, but on whether it was accepted practice in their culture to sacrifice a human being by cutting out their heart.
The inherent problem with your thinking is that ethical judgments can vary based on time and culture. It was accepted in early America to own slaves. We now believe that slavery is wrong. Does this mean that slavery was okay back when slavery was accepted in our culture? NO. It was still wrong then and it's wrong now. Ethics cannot vary based on the time and culture of the people. As a result, it was just as wrong for the Aztecs to kill innocent people in sacrifices as it was for the Europeans to kill innocent native americans. Furthermore, this indicates that the native americans were no better than the people who came and conquered them: the Europeans. Unfortunately for them, their technology was inferior to their conquerors so they could not fend them off.
I read a book in highschool called "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee." Wounded knee is mostly certainly taught in our schools, I am a witness to it. We are most certainly berated about what "we" did to the native americans. We are made to feel guilty about the sins of our former leaders - I remember learning about our guilt. Let me tell you what: I have pride in who our leaders were. Sure, some of them made mistakes but in the end, I believe they were heroes for this nation. I am proud of our history and what America has done for the world - America has nothing to be ashamed of: we have done many many great things too.
Okay, so there were plenty of north american tribes that were violent. The Sioux butchered Custer and his men in Custer's last stand. The Mayans, Inca, and Apache were the zenith of native american achievement, though. Therefore, they represent the best that the native americans could achieve. Still, they butchered their own people in naive attempts to get a good harvest. Much like we butcher the unborn to solve our "problems."
-Enoch Powell
no, that's not what i'm saying at all. when you deal w/ aztec human sacrifices you know what you are going to get - human sacrifice. see, if i say 'aztec human sacrifice' ppl will usually think of them...killing ppl. now, if i say 'christmas' i doubt most ppl will think of the US Army shooting women and children in the back.
blah
yes, it has done some good things, but it also does a lot of horrible things and never takes accountability for them <in case you forgot that thread you ducked out of>
the incas also practices peaceful assimilation and there are tribes that didn't butcher ppl. didn't custer deserve it? they were stealing land that was promised to the natives. if i sold you a car then you proceed to put a nice stereo system in it can i say 'hey, that looks like a pretty nice car now, i think i'll take it back'? something tells me you wouldn't let me have the car back for free, would you? but this is what we did. we came and took land, promised them everything west of the mississippi until gold and other things of value were discovered and took them back. your hero andrew jackson violated the supreme court by seizing land belonging to the natives. i just don't see how you can call these ppl heros? what differentiates them from the incas you are speaking about? maybe it wasn't killing ppl b/c they thought the gods would be happy but they sure did kill a looooooooot of ppl out of greed. so why is one ok but not hte other?
in other words:
if they kill ppl it's bad and wrong
if we kill ppl its for good reasons
ethical relativism at its best, folks. does everyone see this?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Your answers are cop outs and do not address the simple ethical dilemmas you encounter in foisting your morality on one group of people but not another. You are clearly biased against Americans and in favor of the native americans since you are unwilling to condemn the savagery of the Sioux who murdered Custer and all of his men but you are completely against Wounded Knee. Both were immoral acts.
The soldiers probably believed the native americans were sub-human. Not equal to the white man. Therefore, they were not failing to "love their fellow man." They were failing to love "sub-human pagan savages who deserved to die for trespassing on land that rightfully belonged to americans." This is where your relativistic ethical position is wrong. What the soldiers did was wrong but it was wrong for the same reason that the Sioux were wrong for killing Custer and his men, and it was wrong for the same reason that the Aztec, Inca, and Mayans were wrong for killing innocent humans as sacrifices. You cannot say the soldiers were worse because they were Christian - their perspective was different: the indians were "sub-human." It was akin to killing animals.
Now, the problem with your ethical assumptions is that you believe the soldiers were wrong for killing innocent people because you see those people as equal to the soldiers (and deserving of life). The soldiers did not believe this, and most of society did not. Therefore, what they did was not wrong according to the morality of the time. Therefore, you cannot say what they did was wrong if you are unwilling to say that Aztec human sacrifices were wrong. Just because the soldiers were going to celebrate christmas soon didn't matter - in their eyes, they weren't doing anything wrong. Society supported what they did and this did not offend their religious beliefs.
Foisting your own social norms on historical figures is all well and good when hindsight is 20/20. If you are going to continue in this mode of ethical relativism, you have to say that it was okay that the soldiers killed the native americans if it was okay that the Sioux killed Custer and his men. Given different social norms, any one of us could've been one of those soldiers at Wounded Knee, though. You're unwilling to condemn the native americans for being decadent murderers of their own people and yet you are willing to condemn the vast majority of our racist, slaveholding leaders. You say that the killing of innocent native americans by other native americans was just "Aztec sacrifice" and that's what you get when you deal with the history of the Aztecs. Nope, there is objective morality and the human sacrifices were as morally wrong as what the soldiers did. Neither were morally right. The Indians were no better than the people that conquered them.
It's bullshit that somehow you can condemn everything America has ever done but the Indians were somehow "non-materialistic" and "peaceful." Gimme a break. Making those broad assumptions shows the level of historical and ethical integrity you really have.
-Enoch Powell
HEHE!
No.
You must have completely misread my post. I said both were wrong. Clearly you have no idea what ethical relativism is, even though you've succinctly expressed its basic teachings. Well done!
Read up, Kabonkers!!
This is a very good article that indicates exactly why you are wrong:
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/ethicalrelativism.html
"Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not. For example, in some societies, killing one's parents after they reached a certain age was common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with these societies on the underlying moral principle -- the duty to care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles."
-Enoch Powell
is this b/c you got it handed to you in that other thread about accountability?
I never said it wasn't wrong, i said when someone comes to steal your land one usually reacts to it, and when those invaders have guns blood will be spilt. s...you think what they did was wrong, but yet they are still heros to you and did the right hting? then how was it wrong!?
ok, and....? i never made many of these arguements, i never said one death was worse than the other. what i said was one is glorified <which you have even admited in doing> while the other is looked down upon. that is my point. we are taught about the aztecs and human sarcifice in school, we are only given a brief overview about what we did to the indians, we definately don't discuss wounded knee, maybe your school did but my school system did not.
'Sure, some of them made mistakes but in the end, I believe they were heroes for this nation. I am proud of our history and what America has done for the world '
those are your words. so if those actions are so bad why do you continue to portray them as heros? why are you 'proud' of this?
i never said what the aztecs did wasn't wrong, i also didn't say they were heros and that i was proud of the sacrifices.
when did i say 'it's just "aztec sacrifice"??? talk about twisting things. what i said was if you talk about aztecs human sacrifice you know what you are talking about...sacrificing humans. if you talk about christmas the first thought most ppl will have will not be the army murdering women and children. and what i said about custer was he was invading land that was not his to take it by force, that is his fault. it's like me breaking into a house and holding a gun to the owners head...if he gets free and shoots me i can't cry about being shot b/c MY actions caused me to be shot. and so did custer's actions of invading land not the US' and trying to take it by force. of course indian killing indian is wrong.
i don't condemn everything america has ever done, but unlike you, i don't think we've only done good things. i also don't think it's ok to not have any accountability for the millions of deaths we have caused.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way